Empty Hands Music
Cindy Phillips stands by a shelf filled with family photos and Mexican-themed dolls. "Its a daily reminder of my heritage for me and my daughter," she said.
Brooks is a race and culture reporter for KCUR.
Cindy Phillips, originally from Mexico City, became a U.S. citizen in December and registered to vote the very same day. She said systemic corruption in Mexican politics, including the murders of candidates and voters, make it dangerous to participate in democracy there.
“This sounds very stereotypical, But there are cartels taking over the country, and the government is not taking the right measures to control that,” Phillips said.
Escaping that situation is part of why she immigrated to the U.S. almost eight years ago. The other reason was to be with the man who is now her husband. What she’s learned since about the electoral impacts of immigrants like herself makes her feel American democracy is more open and transparent than back in Mexico.
“I’ve read that younger voters have had a huge impact on the election results,” she said. “So in my case, as a millennial, if I vote, I know my vote is going to count.”
Philips, who’s 35, represents a rapidly growing sector of the American electorate: immigrants who are newly naturalized citizens.
An estimated 3.5 million voting age adults have been naturalized in the U.S. since the 2020 election, according to the U.S. Immigration Policy Center at the University of California San Diego and the National Partnership for New Americans. And the number of immigrants who are eligible to vote has increased by 93% since 2000, according to a 2020 Pew Research Center study.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Though the same Pew study points out new citizens tend to vote less than American-born citizens by around 8%, the number of new naturalized citizens in some swing states has surpassed the voting margin of recent election results.
In Arizona, where the 2020 presidential election was decided by 10,000 votes, more than 62,000 people became naturalized citizens between 2016 and 2020.
Phillips said the significance those voters have energizes her as she prepares to cast her first vote in the U.S.
“Voting is a right that we have. It wasn’t too long ago they made this a constitutional amendment so women and other minorities were able to vote,” said Phillips, who has lived in Kearney, Missouri, since 2021.
“So it’s something we should remember,” she said. “This is a symbol of our freedom.”
The senior editor for Hallmark Cards has worked mostly from home since the COVID pandemic, and it is partly how she’s adjusted to living in rural Missouri.
She says anti-immigrant rhetoric she’s encountered in her small community has been a culture shock, compared to more diverse cities she previously lived in, like Independence and Olathe.
“They can make some racist comments that I don’t agree with most of the time. I don’t want to mention anything because I don’t want to get in trouble or get into some controversy,” Phillips said of living in Kearney. “I just got tired of trying to educate people when they don’t understand some of the aspects, to be different in this country.”
Phillips also worries that the lack of diversity in Kearney’s schools and businesses may negatively affect her 4-year-old daughter, who was born in Merriam, Kansas.
“I’m trying to teach her about other minorities by reading her some books and teaching her that everybody looks different,” she said.
She admitted it can feel defeating at times, but Phillips isn’t dissuaded from talking with other immigrants about the significance of voting.
“It’s our responsibility to exercise this right and to make it count for us, because we matter,” she said. “Now we’re citizens, so we need to teach younger generations that this is very important, and it’s essential for our country.”
Immigrant voting rights have again become a hot button issue this election season, and American Civil Liberties Union’s Kansas Chapter leader Micah Kubic thinks Americans need to modernize their thinking about what voter disenfranchisement looks like.
“It’s not all Bull Connor and police dogs,” he said, referring to the infamous segregationist commissioner of Birmingham, Alabama, who ordered violent attacks against Martin Luther King Jr. and protesters in 1963. “Voter suppression is when we refuse to make materials available in languages other than English, when we know that it will boost voter turnout.”
Kubic also includes the fact that former President Donald Trump and others have since at least 2016 spread debunked theories about the number of noncitizens voting in American elections.
“The attacks that you see on democracy, especially these completely false, twisted ‘big lie’ attacks that tie immigration to it, are so, so harmful,” he said. “In addition to being factually wrong, they try to discourage people from participating by creating an environment of fear, harassment and intimidation.”
Still, Kubic said it’s common in his experience for the naturalized community to be politically active, since it takes an average of seven years to complete the citizenship process, depending on birth country.
“To do that you have to be super engaged. You have to be really aware of what’s going on in the world,” Kubic said. “And all of that leads, in general, to higher levels of civic engagement, including voting.”
According to a 2020 report from the National Partnership for New Americans, more than 5 million voting age immigrants became citizens between 2014 and 2020. And the Pew Research Center says 10%, or 23.2 million, of the eligible voters in the 2020 presidential election were naturalized citizens, a record high.
In her suburban Kearney neighborhood, cut out of acres of fertile farmland, Phillips often reflects on the challenges of navigating the administrative pathway to citizenship.
She remembers living with the constant worry that sudden policy changes in Washington or Jefferson City or Topeka might make obtaining citizenship harder, or that simple legal issues like a traffic ticket could be considered crimes or a lack of moral standing by a court.
“Having that concern that at any given time they can just take your residency away because it’s subject to some conditions,” she said, “that was very stressful to me. So I wanted to do this for me, but mainly for my family, just to provide some security.”
Phillips is especially grateful for her legal status because she knows other immigrants may never get the opportunity to take the citizenship test, let alone pass it.
“It takes a lot of sacrifices and money and it’s a huge investment just to become an American citizen,” she said. “Once the ceremony was over, I felt very proud of myself.”
Phillips’ husband, who is a natural-born citizen, doesn’t share her passion for voting. She said he sometimes complains about issues like taxes and inflation, but doesn’t feel compelled to vote.
His attitude reinforces her ideas about Americans taking privileges like voting for granted. Still, it doesn’t affect her enthusiasm for making her voice heard.
“I just let it go because, I mean, you just pick your battles, right?” she said. “But I hope he votes in the upcoming elections.”
Phillips said she still doesn’t know who she’ll choose for president in November, but issues like education, health care and public safety will be top of mind when she goes to the polls.
“I’m excited because it will give me the opportunity to preserve the democracy of this country,” she said.
Cover Photo: Cindy Phillips stands by a shelf filled with family photos and Mexican-themed dolls she brings back to Kearney, Missouri, when she travels back to Mexico. “Its a daily reminder of my heritage for me and my daughter,” she said. (Lawrence Brooks IV/KCUR 89.3)
This article was first published on KCUR 89.3 and republished with permission.
Vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, standing next to former President Donald Trump at the Republican National Convention, said President Biden's campaign rhetoric "led directly to President Trump's attempted assassination."
Khalid is a physician, geostrategic analyst and freelance writer.
President Joe Biden’s initial response to the attack on Donald Trump, calling it “sick” and reaching out to his stricken adversary to express support, was commendable. Statements from other prominent Democrats, including former President Barack Obama and Vice President Kamala Harris, as well as notable Republicans like former President George W. Bush and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, echoed this sentiment of unity and concern.
In contrast, the response from some on the right — engaging in finger-pointing and blaming Democrats for their heated rhetoric — proved less productive. Vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, for instance, asserted that Biden's campaign rhetoric "led directly to President Trump's attempted assassination," seemingly in reaction to recent comments from Biden suggesting, "It’s time to put Trump in a bullseye." This divisive rhetoric only exacerbates the political tension that already grips the nation. Instead of fostering unity, such accusations deepen the partisan divide.
Many hoped that Trump and his followers wouldn’t exploit this assassination attempt to blame Democrats for political violence in America, but social media is already aflame with such memes. Republican efforts now seem directed at getting the media to condemn Democrats whenever they highlight the GOP's association with violence.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
From Jan. 6 to Trump's jokes about the hammer attack on Paul Pelosi to his "very fine people" comment in Charlottesville, the pattern is clear. Having secured the fervent support of the GOP base in the wake of this attempt on his life, his new aim might be to attract swing voters by sounding reasonable. Such a strategy could also aid the GOP in countering Biden's critiques of Trump’s decade-long promotion of violence.
However, the question remains: Will the media join in condemning Democrats for normal campaign rhetoric while normalizing Trump's violent past? And will Biden and his campaign, along with progressive media, be silenced by the GOP's phony calls to "tone down the rhetoric"? The stakes in this political theater are high, and the fallout will shape the nation’s discourse.
The challenge lies in whether Biden and progressive media will bow to GOP pressure to temper their campaign rhetoric while Trump’s own history of incendiary language is normalized. The ongoing focus on Trump, with all its implications, highlights his extremism, legal issues and the far-right agenda outlined in Project 2025, a policy blueprint he has struggled to distance himself from. Democrats hope that this scrutiny might sway swing voters away from him.
The attempt on Trump's life reinforces his self-portrayal as a victim, a narrative he has cultivated since his 2020 re-election loss. He has consistently framed his legal battles as partisan attacks and even suggested that the 2022 FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago was a covert assassination attempt.
Trump’s base remains fiercely reactive to any perceived threats against him. Following his May conviction on felony charges in New York, his supporters called for violence against jurors and judges, and even riots. Similarly, at a recent rally, journalists reported aggressive behavior from Trump’s supporters, including threats, taunts and attempts to breach the media area. This volatile reaction underscores the dangerous climate surrounding Trump, where every incident is amplified into a political weapon, further fueling divisions in American politics.
Trump's reliance on conspiracy theories and divisive rhetoric has been a hallmark of his political strategy. However, in the wake of the recent shooting, it remains uncertain whether he will deter his base from such inflammatory tactics. This incident presents Trump with a crucial opportunity to prioritize national peace and security over personal ambition. A near-death experience might compel a shift in his approach, urging him to foster a more measured tone.
The potential consequences of Trump's response are significant. If he continues to incite his supporters, the nation could face increasingly dangerous repercussions. We've already witnessed the destructive impact of his rhetoric, as seen with the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot driven by fabricated claims of victimization. The recent shooting could herald a period of heightened peril if Trump does not moderate his influence. His reaction will be pivotal in determining whether this troubling trend towards political violence will escalate further or be curtailed.
The proliferation of conspiracy theories and apocalyptic rhetoric on the right has significantly contributed to the rise in violent acts. The attempted assassination could further inflame the radicalism that has been brewing. Saturday’s shooting was a close call with tragedy, narrowly avoiding what could have been one of the darkest days in American history. This incident marks a critical inflection point in the presidential race and the broader political climate.
It is highly likely that Trump will seize the recent assassination attempt as a prime political opportunity rather than a moment for genuine reflection. Instead of introspection, Trump will likely indulge his deep-seated self-image, turning to his own brand of heroism rather than any spiritual or moral reconsideration. Rather than seeking solace in religious texts, he may instead look to his persona as a larger-than-life figure, impervious to bullets and criticism alike.
Trump’s response is expected to exacerbate his existing rhetoric, doubling down on divisive narratives and conspiracies. By pandering to his evangelical base, he is poised to frame the attack as a testament to his divine protection, portraying himself as a heroic savior against alleged Democratic enemies. This manipulation of religious symbolism to bolster his position will only deepen the polarization within American politics.
His supporters will rally around this constructed martyrdom, elevating him to a mythic status that aligns with his grandiose self-image, while his advisors work to fine-tune this narrative to maximize political gain. This approach highlights a troubling trend of exploiting personal crises for political leverage.
Johnson is a United Methodist pastor, the author of "Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community" and program director for the Bridge Alliance, which houses The Fulcrum.
As the 2024 presidential campaigns speed toward November, we face a transformative moment for our nation. The challenges of recent years have starkly revealed the deep divisions that threaten our societal fabric. Yet, amidst the discord, we are presented with a pivotal choice: Will we yield to the allure of division, or will we summon the courage to transcend our differences and shape a future founded on common cause and mutual respect?
The answer to this question lies in acknowledging a profound truth that has been the wellspring of our nation's resilience since its inception: Our ability to find common cause in the face of adversity is the key to unlocking our true potential as a people. Building together is not merely a matter of grudgingly tolerating diverse viewpoints; it is a powerful affirmation of our shared humanity, a defiant declaration that the inherent dignity residing within every individual shall not diminish due to the differences that superficially divide us.
The cause of building together is not naive idealism, a Pollyannaish belief that we can relinquish the real tensions among us. Our differences are the inevitable result of America's vibrant diversity, the varied threads that weave together to form our nation's rich tapestry. To build together, we must first acknowledge this reality, validating the experiences, fears and concerns that shape the perspectives of our fellow citizens. Only by creating a space where every voice rings out clearly can we address the valid grievances on all sides of the divides that separate us and find common ground in our shared humanity.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
At the heart of our mission is the understanding that those we may differ with are not opponents, but allies in a shared cause — democracy. Driven by the same core desires — a yearning for respect, dignity and a better future for ourselves and our loved ones. It is this collective purpose, this mutual respect, that we must nurture to bridge the gaps that divide us and construct a nation that embodies our highest ideals.
Navigating this electoral season and ongoing work of our democratic republic demands courage to truly listen and understand, even when it challenges our deeply held beliefs. It requires empathy — the ability to see the world through our neighbors' eyes and walk in their shoes. It demands openness — a willingness to share our stories, struggles, and victories — to find common ground in our shared humanity. These are the building blocks of a nation united not by uniformity of thought, but by a shared commitment to the principles of justice, compassion and equality on which our country was built.
The task is daunting, and the journey is long and challenging. Yet it is the only path forward, the sole means by which we can hope to create a world that reflects the very best of who we are and aspire to be. Standing on the precipice of the 2024 presidential election, may we faithfully engage ourselves to this sacred work. Each of us should pledge to listen with open hearts and minds and to seek understanding even in the face of disagreement. Attentive to valid concerns on all sides, ever seeking to find common ground or humanity in one another.
The imperative to unify in the face of adversity is before us. Living up to such a responsibility serves as a testament to the indomitable strength of the human spirit. However, the choice is ours: We can allow the forces of division to pull us asunder, or we, as active participants in this societal transformation, can rise above our differences and construct a future rooted in mutual respect and a shared sense of purpose.
Building together is indeed a challenging charge to keep. It requires patience, perseverance, and faith in ourselves and each other. I understand it's not easy, but it is the only path to a world that mirrors the love and justice at the heart of our highest ideals. Each of us must commit ourselves to this sacred work, my friends. I pray that we find hope and strength in our shared humanity to navigate these trying times, overcome the barriers that divide us and build a nation that reflects the best of us. Doing so will ensure a brighter future for ourselves and those who come after us.
People protest outside the Supreme Court as the justices prepared to hear Grants Pass v. Johnson on April 22.
Herring is an assistant professor of sociology at UCLA, co-author of an amicus brief in Johnson v. Grants Pass and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.
In late June, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass that the government can criminalize homelessness. In the court’s 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the conservative justices ruled that bans on sleeping in public when there are no shelter beds available do not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
This ruling will only make homelessness worse. It may also propel U.S. localities into a “race to the bottom” in passing increasingly punitive policies aimed at locking up or banishing the unhoused.
Like many West Coast localities, the town of Grants Pass, Ore., suffers from an acute affordable housing crisis and no homeless shelters for adults. In 2013, the city council hosted a meeting to “identify solutions to the current vagrancy problem.” Rather than expanding shelter or housing, the council passed ordinances that made it illegal to sleep outside with blankets, pillows or even cardboard. Every violation triggers a $275 fine, and after two citations a person may be issued an exclusion order across all public property.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
This amounts to banishment from Grants Pass or incarceration for simply being homeless. As the city council president at the time said, “The point is to make it uncomfortable enough for them in our city so they will want to move on down the road.”
While the Grants Pass scheme may be uniquely cruel, local governments enforce ordinances against standing, sitting, resting and sleeping in public space across the United States. Now that the minimal guardrails of legal protections for the homeless have been removed by the Supreme Court, it is more important than ever for local lawmakers not to fall prey to populist outrage to ramp up punitive crackdowns. They should instead heed the decades of social science research that shows them to be both counterproductive and cruel.
Synthesizing over 50 published research papers on the impacts of these laws from small towns to large cities, a group of social scientists including myself filed a brief for the Supreme Court in the case. The research consistently arrived at a broad consensus. The enforcement of anti-homeless laws not only fails to reduce homelessness in public space beyond a few blocks, it also traps people in homelessness longer and exacerbates health conditions, all while creating numerous barriers to shelter, treatment, jobs and housing.
Enforcement of anti-homeless laws has been shown to have various negative health impacts. For instance, a 2021 California study of 3,200 adults experiencing homelessness in eight counties found that 36 percent had their belongings taken and/or destroyed by local agencies while enforcing anti-homeless ordinances in just six months. Participants in this study and in other large surveys taken in Denver and Honolulu reported having lost life-saving medicine needed to treat HIV and Hepatitis C, ID and benefit cards, walkers, canes, crutches, and wheelchairs. Meanwhile, CDC scientists acknowledge that clearing encampments through enforcement increases the spread of infectious disease, increasing public health risks.
A study surveying doctors and medical providers identified widespread frustration with enforcement. The houseless regularly avoid appointments or even hospitalization from fear that their property will be destroyed. Many lose benefits and prescriptions due to short incarcerations. All of this leads to negative health impacts, increased emergency room utilization and exorbitant health care costs on already strained systems.
Many people experience incarceration for their first time due to their homelessness, but the consequences have lasting effects. Incarceration often means a loss of employment due to absence and increased difficulty securing new employment stemming from their newly acquired criminal record. The mark of a criminal record also leads to exclusions in the housing market due to landlord discrimination.
Tickets are often viewed as a civil infraction, but they can have the same punitive impacts. Unpaid citations in most U.S. localities result in arrest warrants, spoiled credit, suspensions of driver’s licenses, and erect multiple barriers to exiting homelessness. In San Francisco, a study found that 90 percent of the 10,000 to 15,000 citations given to homeless people each year for sitting, camping or loitering go unpaid — no surprise considering the poverty of those cited.
Not only are those with warrants often barred from work and housing, they are also restricted from residential drug and mental health treatment programs, as well as homeless shelters in many states. Rather than working as sticks to push people towards better life choices and opportunity, studies consistently find that enforcement more often pulls people deeper into poverty and extends their homelessness.
Despite the overwhelming evidence that these laws are ineffective, costly and harmful, they are politically popular. For politicians in power, enforcement reduces public outrage.
Such laws have been consistently found to do nothing to curb wider collective urban disorder or reduce homelessness in public space. But enforcement scratches the itch of individual angry residents and business owners dialing 911 to have their block spot-cleaned of homelessness. Meanwhile, political challengers often campaign on even harsher ordinances, blaming the persistence of homelessness on the incumbent’s tolerance. Both positions distract from the real issue of the growing affordable housing crisis at the problem’s root, which politicians are weary to address.
Even if the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of the homeless plaintiffs, the truth is little would have changed without further political and legal pressure for reforms. And though Friday’s ruling is a huge step backwards, it won’t stop the ongoing legal cases to protect unhoused people’s rights on Fourth, Fifth, and 14th amendment grounds of rights to property, due process and equal access to shelter.
Nonetheless, the court’s decision now frees localities of even the lowest level of accountability in its criminal treatment of homelessness. It will also fuel political competition between cities, counties and even states to pass increasingly punitive policies as they try to push their unhoused residents “down the road.”
Elwood is the author of “Defusing American Anger” and hosts thepodcast “People Who Read People.”
Recently, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was surreptitiously recorded at a private event saying, about our political divides, that “one side or the other is going to win.” Many people saw this as evidence of his political bias. In The Washington Post, Perry Bacon Jr. wrote that he disagreed with Alito’s politics but that the justice was “right about the divisions in our nation today.” The subtitle of Bacon’s piece was: “America is in the middle of a nonmilitary civil war, and one side will win.”
It’s natural for people in conflict to see it in “us versus them” terms — as two opposing armies facing off against each other on the battlefield. That’s what conflict does to us: It makes us see things through war-colored glasses.
And as more people embrace “we’re at war” framings and language, this amplifies the toxicity of the conflict — and can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The truth is that our conflict, like most conflicts, is complex and nuanced. It is not one side versus the other. It is not a binary battlefield. What we have are debates over a multitude of issues. Some of these issues do cluster in predictable ways, but that doesn’t mean it’s one side versus the other.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The truth is that many Americans have views that don’t abide by “Republican versus Democrat” or “left versus right” framings.
I’ll use myself as an example: I think some antiracism ideas are simplistic and divisive. Some people might categorize some of my views on that and other issues as conservative but I reject that label. I have other views that many would see as liberal but I’d reject that label, too. I don’t see my views as related to some overarching ideological divide or spectrum.
People who embrace a “we’re at war” framing would say that I and others must “pick a side.” But we don’t have to do that — and we shouldn’t do that.
The illogical pressures a polarized society places on us to align with all the stances of one political party or the other may be one reason so many people are no longer identifying as a Republican or Democrat.
To be clear, this is not to say that there aren’t important and emotion-provoking issues. There are. I personally think it’s of the utmost importance that Trump is defeated. But being against Trump doesn’t require a warlike, “one side will win” narrative. It’s a stance on a specific issue: Trump himself. And as with most issues, that stance can be held by both self-described liberals and self-described conservatives.
When we embrace warlike narratives about our divides, our divides get more toxic. And because animosity and fear lead to more extreme and non-negotiable stances, such framings also help create the very things many of us are upset about.
In their book “The Myth of Left and Right,” Verlan and Hyrum Lewis make a persuasive case that “liberals” and “conservatives” are largely social groupings — not groupings based on a coherent, overarching ideology. The work of researcher Michael Macy supports this idea; he’s investigated how group stances can be formed in unpredictable, random ways. This more flexible and tribe-oriented view of our divides help explain how group stances can shift suddenly and dramatically (for example, Trump moving the GOP to economic stances previously associated with liberals).
“If people saw the reality of political pluralism, they’d see that both parties stand for many unrelated issues, some good, some bad. As is, they have the delusion that there is just one big issue, so if a party is on the correct side (left or right) of the one big issue, then they are correct about everything,” Hyrum Lewis wrote in a email.
People who wrongly perceive a winner-take-all battlefield fail to see that society can absorb and process conflicts in complex and unpredictable ways. Yes, some issues may have or require clear winners, but others might result in mixed outcomes or creative compromises. America’s mixed economy, with its capitalistic and socialistic aspects, shows how ideas that are sometimes framed as at-odds can coexist. Also, America is a big country; some stances on an issue might prosper in some areas of society but fail in others.
If we want to avoid worst-case scenarios of chaos, dysfunction and violence, we must think about how our narratives and language can make those scary paths either more likely or less likely.
We can reduce political toxicity by avoiding “we’re at war” and “left versus right” rhetoric. We can debate issues and work towards our own political goals without using such flattening and conflict-amplifying rhetoric.
Not only will that help reduce our political toxicity, it will help people be more persuasive in their activism on specific issues. When our divides are framed as a war between left and right, that makes it almost impossible for us to persuade someone on the “other side” who may have otherwise supported our stance on a specific issue. By promoting the idea that there’s no war but just a bunch of issues, that reduces team-based pressures on people and helps them make more nuanced choices.
To avoid worst-case scenarios in America, we’ll need to help politically passionate people see how avoiding warlike rhetoric isn’t just something they do for the country — but something that will help them achieve their own goals.
